About Me

I am an old-fashioned American citizen who believes in our traditional values of freedom, truth, and justice. When I see our laws and government subverted and twisted into service of the undemocratic, powerful, corporate oligarchy, I must react with a patriotic defense of our values. I strongly oppose the ongoing destruction of what is left of American democracy and shall give voice to our common cause of freedom.
I invite you to share my thoughts. I also welcome your comments, be they contradictory, corrective, or complimentary. Only one comment and response will be allowed for anonymous trolls. Repeated, unidentified, and off-topic trolling will be deleted as spam.

Thursday, March 14, 2013

"Both Sides Do It"

“Both
sides do it” sums up the corporate media punditry assessment of the Democrats
and Republicans. Equivocation, meet false equivalence.

It
is certainly true that corruption and dishonesty can be found within both of
our corporatist parties.

But
one party is 100% in the pocket of Big Money while the other is somewhat less.

Both
sides do it, but one side does it exclusively.

Don’t
expect corporate media to ever discuss this difference.

And
there are plenty of other examples of false equivalence from corporate media.

One
party is actively working to suppress voter turnout. One party is actively
working to rig their states electoral system to give the presidential election
to Republicans by overruling the majority of Democratic voters.

One
party controls the House of Representatives even though more Americans voted
for the other party.

One
party is openly antagonistic towards democracy and the equal protection clause
of the 14thAmendment:

“No state
shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities
of citizens of theUnited
States;
nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.”

Racial
profiling, gerrymandering, voter registration restrictions, ID restrictions, limiting access to polls, and let's add Supreme Court Justice
Antonin Scalia’s personal assault on the Voting Rights Act as "racial entitlements", are a but a few of the weapons used by the Right in its
war on democracy.

So,
do both sides do that?

I
suppose so, if you believe limiting large high fructose beverages inNew
Yorkis
oppression. But that’s not an issue now. The ridiculous ban has been blocked by
a judge. I’ve never seen that as one of the foundations of liberalism anyway.

The
corporate media’s false equivalence is addressed most eloquently by David
Atkins atHullabaloo:

Atkins
wrote:

“But, the critics say, doesn't the left do the same
thing?

Well, no. There are two big differences.

First, the progressive left doesn't even begin to
have the same influence or funding that the far right does. Even if we wanted
to play the Club for Growth's game, we have neither the power nor the reach to
do it. And the media barely notices.

But the second and more important difference is
that the far right is advocating deeply unpopular and objectively crazy and
immoral policies. The left simply isn't doing that.

Cutting Social Security is unpopular. It's also bad
public policy. Cutting Medicare is unpopular. It's also bad public policy.
Giving the ultra-wealthy more tax breaks is unpopular. It's also bad public
policy. InvadingIranis
unpopular. It's also bad public policy. Refusing gun background checks is
unpopular. It's also bad public policy. Perpetuating breaks for the fossil fuel
industry is unpopular. It's also bad public policy. The list is endless.

This is why journalism that prioritizes balance
over truth is so harmful. If the press isn't able to stand up and tell the
public who is right and who is wrong, all that's left is a tug-of-war among
seemingly bickering infants. If the press isn't able to say that one side is
utterly bought off by corporate interests, and the other side is mostly bought
off by corporate interests but less so, then apathy reigns supreme.

If the press were as interested in bipartisanship
as they claim to be, the first step would be to start telling the truth about
public policy.”

I couldn't have said it better.

--

A side note, that’s definitely related, is a comment from former Republican senator Alan Simpson.

“In an interview with The Washington
Post's Karen Tumulty, former senator Alan Simpson(R-Wyo.) gives his
thoughts on the state of conservatism ahead of CPAC this week.

Video:Alan Simpson on the state of
conservatism: It's 'goofy,' 'rigid'.”

Goofy, rigid... and hostile towards democracy.

Perhaps that's because Republican Right Wing Conservatism is not really
conservative. It's more conned-servative.

27 comments:

There is some validity to the notion that Republicans suppress the vote. The difference I'm sure is on how they have done it. I highly doubt requiring a 16.00 state ID card at the polls would really suppress the vote - however Republicans certainly did so when they had Gary Johnson thrown off numerous state ballots during the 2012 election. Within their own party they actually held Ron Paul delegates on buses to the convention and while they were so held they changed the party rules to exclude them from the delegate vote. So that is true to some degree, but we probably disagree on the degree.

That is why I did not vote in 2012. Yes I could have written Gary Johnson in I suppose. I however, felt the impact on the GOP would be greater when exit polls showed Republicans or likely GOP voters simply stayed home. I was part of a large group of Conservative and Libertarian voters who quite simply wouldn't play ball with the GOP games. Our goal was to punish the GOP, and it worked. I don't know with 100% certainty if we cost them the election, but it definitely didn't help them.

I suppose I could have chosen Barack Obama, but I could not in good conscience. While I can relate why most of you could not choose a crook like Mitt Romney, I am at a loss how you could choose a crook like Barack Obama.

On this blog, I often hear how "corporations" or "Big Money" somehow "BUY" elections. Nobody bothers to ask exactly how - if that is true - that is done exactly or if the question is bothered to be asked most people don't really think too deeply about it. The truth is, elected offices are not sold to the highest bidder. People still have to vote. What sways elections presumably is advertising dollars, which indeed often come from wealthy individuals.

Both parties eat those advertising dollars with veracity. Equally. If you really think Democrats are funded exclusively by $10.00 mom and pop contributions or the GOP is exclusively funded by BusHitlerBurtonBigOil™ then you are frankly a fucking idiot and gullible in the extreme.

Both parties are equally funded by massive Super Pacs. That is where the vast, vast majority of national election funding comes from, from either party. Both parties have special interests they cater to, and both think in terms of voter blocks. That's politics guys. If you think other wise you might as well be living on the moon.

What both major parties have managed to do is acknowledge their numerous failings and yet convince their brain dead voters that... well -bad as they are - you'd better vote for them because the "other guys" are so much worse. Its as if they are telling you -with all those advertising dollars- that the "other side" isn't just wrong on policy - the other side is evil. And right here in this very post Dave falls for it.

Republicans aren't evil Dave. They are right about some things, wrong about others. Fiscal Conservatism isn't an evil thing... its a responsible way to run just about anything. You don't spend your way to prosperity. That's obvious. If you did that in your own household you'd be bankrupt and homeless and you'd deserve it. And yet to listen to Democrats you'd hear that Republicans want to throw grandma off a cliff and punch a baby.

Same thing with some other issues. Take immigration in this country. The system is horribly bias and unfair and needlessly officious, expensive and inefficient. Or take say - gay marriage or the separation of church and state? To listen to a Republican you'd think all Democrats would want to ban Christianity, force grandma to participate in a Bay Area gay pride parade and destroy the institution of the American family.

Both sides are indeed idiotic and for the most part people actually agree on that. But they still vote for the TEAM because... well - our SIDE might be wrong on some things but the other side is evil incarnate.

Of course it isn't true.

Most people in this country will tell you that just about every politician is lower than pond scum... and yet come election time they'll run right out and pull the lever for them. That is what all that big dollar advertising buys. See the truth we still live in a self governed country. But self government is hard WORK. Its also quite boring. Picking apart policy nuances is often too mind boggling for the professionals and it puts the voters to sleep. Politicians need voters to engage, so that is what all those billions in advertising dollars are put into - turning what should be a boring discussion about policy alternatives into some kind of emotional circle jerk.

And everybody falls for it for the most part, because for the most part self government is hard and people are lazy.

The truth is even some of our dumbest citizens could prioritize government spending pretty well. You run a country much like you run your own household - just on a larger magnitude of scale. We all know that when you're broke you might think about cutting off the cable bill and you might not donate as much to charity that year. Everybody for the most part knows this. But they are fooled into thinking its really more complicated than that when in fact it isn't. They are hypnotized by 1000 page bills full of largely crap and take the easy way out and buy into the emotional EPIC STRUGGLE FOR RIGHT AND WRONG sold to them.

I don't blame those doing the selling. After all, nothing is sold without demand being there first.

So anyway, in the vacuum of the EPIC POWER STRUGGLE is where all the political bullshit is sneaked in. While Dave hear vilifies Republicans who frankly aren't in control of much of anything our President hands insurance companies billions with ObamaCare, taxes us to death, and laments that he has to acknowledge he can't whack American Citizens on American soil without so much as a hearing. And he gets away with it within his party because -

While he IS a scumbag... Republicans are worse.

Hey, Dave bought it hook, line and sinker. And so will the rest of the left. And at some point a Republican will win and the reverse will be true. Because hey, really taking a stand, knowing the issues, and refusing to take part in the big show is awfully hard. Its easier to watch to soap opera, shout some slogans, and turn off the brain with the rest of the electorate.

Which was one of my major points. And voter ID is only one, and perhaps the least, aspect of voter suppression. I listed other methods. There is no comparison between parties on this issue, to whatever degree you may allow.

how you could choose a crook like Barack Obama.

As much as we wish third party candidates stood a chance of relevance, the practical choice is limited, often to what we see as the lesser of two evils. And both parties share the same blame in many ways. I’ve stated this.

elected offices are not sold to the highest bidder

Not literally, but campaign contributions and lobbying are effective means of influence. The fact that so many former elected officeholders go on to be lobbyists indicates who they work for.

both major parties have managed to do is acknowledge their numerous failings

This is something you need to show us. The only “failing” I’ve seen is their explanation of why they may have lost an election. As far as governing goes, I’ve seen no such admissions from either party. I’ve said the US Government cannot admit it is wrong, no matter how obvious the case. The same is true about the parties. It is institutionalized and artificial righteousness, which you understand is what they try to sell. “Moral majority”, “Family values” “real Americans”, etc.

Republicans aren't evil Dave. They are right about some things, wrong about others. Fiscal Conservatism isn't an evil thing... Republicans want to throw grandma off a cliff and punch a baby.

Depends on where you see the evil. Lying to take us to war is evil. FDR’s internment was an evil. Both were justified by each party. Republicans do in fact support policies that cut benefits for Grandma and limit health care access for babies. And they do in fact support policies that exclusively benefit the wealthy. Too many Democrats are guilty of this as well.

our SIDE might be wrong on some things but the other side is evil incarnate.

Tell me about it. Those of us who called out the lies of Bush/Cheney Iraq propaganda were called traitors. And liberals have been the target of demonization by right wing corporate media for decades.

that is what all those billions in advertising dollars are put into - turning what should be a boring discussion about policy alternatives into some kind of emotional circle jerk.

In other words, ”Free speech”? How about more discussion and less advertising? Out of the question, corporate media feed voraciously on “free speech money”.

Republicans who frankly aren't in control of much of anything

Ah, who do you think controls most state governments that control voting and elections? Who controls the House of Representatives despite more American votes for the other party? Who has control of Senate obstruction?

he gets away with it within his party because -While he IS a scumbag... Republicans are worse.

As much as we wish third party candidates stood a chance of relevance, the practical choice is limited, often to what we see as the lesser of two evils.

Advertising dollars, cha-ching!

Lying to take us to war is evil

Cha-ching!

Those of us who called out the lies of Bush/Cheney Iraq propaganda were called traitors. And liberals have been the target of demonization by right wing corporate media for decades.

Cha-ching!

Democrats don’t say this

Whats really funny is if you follow politics enough, you can almost guess what websites and email lists you're on. Money well spent, you're an excellent Drone Dave.

In other words, ”Free speech”? How about more discussion and less advertising? Out of the question, corporate media feed voraciously on “free speech money”.

Yes Dave - of course Dave. Thinking is hard. Policy is hard. Being informed is hard. That's just too much for people. To much to expect of people to think they can make intelligent decisions. No, no. Too hard, to confusing. We need to limit information. Yes, yes of course. Limit information. We need some regulators, maybe some people from Washington DC appointed by politicians to decide what is legitimate speech, or how much some people should get to speak or maybe decide that some people don't get to speak at all. Its far, far to complicated for regular people to understand. What we need is to put power in the hand of benevolent regulators who will make good decisions for what is fair for everyone instead of expecting the poor, stupid people to do their job in a government based on self rule. People are far, far to stupid for self rule and require a heavy hand to guide them right? That must be the compassionate thing to do? All that thinking and choosing and deciding is such hard work... I'm sure your right.

Here's part of the problem that never seems to get mentioned. Decision makers at some of the major media outlets can say:

"Yeah, maybe on our news programs or news pages there is an element of false equivalence. Our reporters and news anchors are going to do that if for no other reasons than to avoid being branded by either party as obviously slanted and to maintain access to the powers that be in both parties."

Then, NBC officials can point to MSNBC's lineup of liberal talk shows, their hosts and guests, saying they do provide balance, do report on things like voter suppression, the takedown of democracy in Michigan, the war on organized labor in Wisconsin, racist and misogynist deeds and remarks by Republicans, etc.

The New York Times can point to liberal columnists like Paul Krugman, to editorials highly critical of Republican pols and policies, and to op-eds by guest columnists.

And so on, with other MSM components.

The problem with this is, MSNBC doesn't draw a huge audience across the country. Much less, I'll bet, than NBC Nightly News does. Current TV draws even less than MSNBC. And, how many newspaper readers who are not progressives read Krugman and other liberals' columns and liberal-written op-eds? How many would read those even if they were given a Times subscription for free?

So, what it goes back to is polarization of so many Americans across the country.

A Montnana rancher and longtime NRA member is far more likely to watch Fox Noise than MSNBC. But even if he decided he should watch MSNBC, if for no other reason than for the chance to scoff at all those nanny-state liberals, he probably couldn't. MSNBC is carried by fewer cable companies than Fox, by a wide margin. News Corp gets Fox on cable nearly everywhere, even if doing so means losing money. Same thing with AM radio carrying Limbaugh, Hannity and others. Go to some little crossroads town in Nebraska that has two radio stations. Chances are, Limbaugh is on both, morning, noon, nights and weekends. Want to listen to Thom Hartmann or Randi Rhodes in that little town in Nebraska? You'd better know how to get streaming radio off the Internet. Charlie in his pickup will never get those programs.

Exposure to continual false equivalence in the MSM is maddening to liberals, understandably. It's real, it's unfair and it serves the public badly. But it's inevitable and likely to be with us for the indefinite future. The best chance to change it is to win over more people in more places across the country. MSM need and want mass-market appeal. They will do what they must to gain and keep that.

"Thinking is hard. Policy is hard. Being informed is hard. That's just too much for people. To much to expect of people to think they can make intelligent decisions. . . We need to limit information . . . We need some regulators, maybe some people from Washington DC appointed by politicians to decide what is legitimate speech, or how much some people should get to speak or maybe decide that some people don't get to speak at all. Its far, far to (sic)complicated for regular people to understand. . ."

In fact, the danger is not and never has been from government officials deciding what people should read, see or hear in America. The danger is people with the money to do such things bombarding the public with lies, distortions and self-serving propaganda from so many directions, so constantly and for so long that the public accepts those lies and distortions as truth and reality.

This is what the Right Wing Noise Machine is for. This is why millionaires, billionaires and corporations have spent the last 50 years creating and fund the Right Wing Noise Machine, and continue to do so today.

There's a reason why a majority of Americans, even after re-electing President Obama, think he has increased government spending and the size of government every year he's been president, when the opposite is true. It's why a majority believe Obama has grown the deficit every year he's been president, when that's only true of his first year. It's why so many, arguably a majority, of Republicans think Obama is foreign born or say they don't know if he's a native-born American. It's why tea party crackpots were joined by so many other gullible, uninformed or misinformed Americans who fell for the death panels lie. Same goes for the "Obama is going to cut millions from Medicare" lie Romney and Ryan tried to peddle last yaer.

One would expect that in the face of such saturation-level lying via broadcast, print and in-person speechmaking, some overzealous government official would assert him- or herself by regulating the propagandists and other liars out of business by now.

Obviously, we need a better grade of overzealous government officials.

When we're lied to once we may forgive the experience as an oversight or misspeak but the parade of lies coming from the right wing has gone beyond belief. And like the boy who cried wolf was ignored in the end and eaten I suspect the republican party will go the same way.

Take away your guns? It was Obama who permitted them in national parks. And if you need an AR to defend yourself maybe you shouldn't own a gun in the first place. You must be a pretty bad shot if you need a 30 round clip.

They live in a violence fueled fantasy of black helicopters and jackbooted ATF agents out to get them. Yes, they hold to the Tim McVeigh/NRA view of the Second Amendment. It is truly paranoia. And it is a fact one can never reason with paranoids.

First of all its not a clip. Clips go in WWI to WWII era battle rifles.

What you are referring to is the magazine. And if you know anything about the AR platform, you know you only load 28 rounds, because 30 causes malfunctions in feeding.

As for how many rounds it takes to kill a person with the 5.56mm/223 round, its **duh** 223 caliber. Very similar to the 22 caliber, just with a great deal more muzzle velocity. Thats why the USMC and Army teach a six round failure to stop drill with it in close quarters marksmanship, as it often takes that many rounds to kill a person - assuming they all hit, which is not easy to do even at point blank range.

So really, we're not talking about fighting 30 people here, we're talking about effectively fighting 4-5 people at most, and that assumes perfect marksmanship under stress. Considering the US Army averages 15,000 rounds expended per kill in Afghanistan... that might be a bit optimistic. Granted I've been shooting that platform for 15 years and I'm a chief marksmanship instructor so I'd say that makes me at least above average with the system... however my experience tells me not to over estimate my ability in a crisis. Your average police officer expends 15.6 rounds per kill with his service pistol. Thats one magazine for my glock with 2 left over... per bad guy. You have to remember shooting paper targets is one thing, shooting people who are moving and shooting back is a whole other ball game. Any combat veteran will tell you that.

Now I don't carry my AR-15 with me at all times because frankly it isn't practical. Thats what I own my various pistols for. However, in my house my primary go-to self defense fire arm is the AR-15 loaded with frangible ammunition that prevents me from over penetrating my interior walls. Reason? I like outgunning bad guys. I'm not interested in getting into a fair gunfight with them, and the AR platform gives me the most fire power allowed by law. If we assume I'm at least as good a shot as the average police officer who expends 15.6 rounds per kill at an average range of 21 feet a "30 round clip" allows me to take on two bad guys if I fight as well as the statistical average.

I've done this for a while, and I know enough to know I'm not Jason Borne -and no one else is either. I don't take my gunfighting lessons from Hollywood films. I being an intelligent primate use tools to give me advantages and put my attackers at a disadvantage.

As for the need to possibly fight multiple intruders - you are aware we have a gang crime problem in this country are you not? And by their very nature gangs tend to do things in groups? Yes, having the ability to fight multiple attackers might make a lot of sense once you consider these datapoints. If by your own standard Demure that it shouldn't take 30 rounds and anyone who needs that many shouldn't have guns... well I suggest you start by disarming all our Soldiers and Police Officers.

As for the bill in the Senate, I love your collective reaction. It likely won't pass. Maybe so. Likely so. But that certainly doesn't take away the overwhelming support -even right here- for its passing, and thats implication on the Democrat support of the 2nd Amendment as a fundamental guarantor of the right AND TOOLS of self defense. What I've seen instead, is a bunch of rather ignorant talk from some people that obviously don't know much about combat shooting. If you are interested in learning I'd be happy to recommend some former military instructors or very capable NRA Law Enforcement certified instructors in your area who could give you a hands on education with rental weapons at reasonable prices.

As for a grandfather mechanism in a bill. Lets set aside the rights shredding that implies for those who have not purchased what someone determines to be an illegal weapon and simply examine me.

I'm sure you're aware that to do anything well you have to practice. From golf to checkers if you don't practice, your skills perish and you eventually start to suck.

Now, assuming I practice with my fire arms -and I do, weekly- you have to consider wear. Guns are machines with moving parts. And just like your car or your toaster a guns parts eventually wear out. A ban with a "grandfather" clause simply means my gun is banned on the installment plan. It means I will either not practice with it -which makes its use frankly dangerous- or that as wear and tear adds up my gun will be rendered kaput in a few years of wear.

Notice the rejection of reality by the paranoid mind. There is no "it" but he fears "it". This is part of what SW meant by Free's "parade of horribles".

Notice also there is no evidence any situation of self defense required more than a ten round magazine. Reality is not a factor here.

Neuroscience is discovering the right wing brain has a more pronounced amygdala. This is the primitive fear center that works on Free as if he is still in a combat zone. Apart from his knowing everything anyway, there's no time for reflection or examination of evidence. It's about "fight or flight".

And this brings us back to the topic. Both sides don't do it. Both sides are not physiologically rigged for similar thinking and behavior.

"As for how many rounds it takes to kill a person with the 5.56mm/223 round, its **duh** 223 caliber. Very similar to the 22 caliber, just with a great deal more muzzle velocity. Thats why the USMC and Army teach a six round failure to stop drill with it in close quarters marksmanship, as it often takes that many rounds to kill a person - assuming they all hit, which is not easy to do even at point blank range."

And now, we know it takes far fewer rounds to kill a 6- or 7-year-old child. At close range.

Exit wounds from an AR or an M-16 round are nothing like those from a .22. Those high-velocity, jacketed .223s at close range are good for an exit wound about the size of the palm of an average man's hand. Two or three across the neck could essentially decapitate a child.

"Clip" refers to a straight-up, multi-round feed in new guns and old. "Magazine" is synonymous and those round things are drums.

Free's picking at someone on terminology is one of the NRA/gun fanatics' oldest argument tactics. They look for even the slightest deviation from what they consider to be proper terminology and try to make a big deal out of it. The tactic is intended to make anyone who disagrees with them appear ignorant, and thus embarrass and silence that opponent.

Anyone who thinks he needs a semiautomatic rifle to defend his home really needs a cop and a shrink in the short run — and a new home far, far away, in the long run. With luck, the enemies he's made won't get his forwarding address and come after him.

Those high-velocity, jacketed .223s at close range are good for an exit wound about the size of the palm of an average man's hand

Way to buy into an urban legend. That is hardly true. The vast majority of exit wounds are only slightly larger than the entrance wound, and only because its harder for the soft tissue to swell around an exit wound than an entrance wound. I've heard this supposed voodoo legend of the 5.56mm round for years and its been debunked a million times... however there are those who really don't know anything at all about ballistics that hold onto it.

The tactic is intended to make anyone who disagrees with them appear ignorant

Or it could just be those people are ignorant. Like when people buy into the myth that somehow a bullet with less diameter than a #2 pencil can somehow make a hole the size of a human hand. Even if a round hits bone, and shatters that bone sending bone shards zipping about it could never do that. Its just very simple physics. To kill a person quickly, you have to hit vital organs. The spine, the brain, or the heart. Thats a mater of anatomy.

I think my biggest objection to gun control advocates is when people this misinformed think they should be making policy about something they really don't know very much about.

Have you recently shot off, in self defense, your AR and glock 17? Did the police get the person you were defending yourself from?

"Under Feinstein's bill those would be criminalized. Thats not drama Dave, that's real."

And here's something else that's real:

Other guaranteed rights under the Bill of Rights have limitations.

The second amendment should not be excluded from limitations. Period.

The NRA and other villainous organizations who care more about the bottom line of the firearms industry than the safety of the American people have suckered you and thousands of other gun fetishers into believing you have a sacred right to any and all firearms. You don't.

And we will continue to work to see that limitations are put in place.

Define recently. As for how many times, does that count foreign countries or just this one? Do you count instances where drawing the gun scared the bad guy away or do I need a confirmed kill for it to count?

Other guaranteed rights under the Bill of Rights have limitations.

Agreed. You should treat fire arms ownership the same way we do voting. You have to be a citizen, be 18 years old, and not be a felon. In fact gun ownership is even more strict. You have to show ID for that.

As for the "both sides do it" argument, that's largely true. If by "IT" you mean authoritarian government and bad policy. Sure there are some differences, but in many ways its frustrating because for ever one issue one of the major parties gets right, it gets another equally wrong.